theadvantagesanddisadvantagesofyoutubekidsfandomcom-20200215-history
Planning
What do we want to do? Based off of our instructor's feedback, we need to make some changes. First: Audience - Who is our audience? Are we talking to kids? Teens? Parents? Teachers? YouTube admins? Personally, I think we should focus it on parents. Perhaps since they have some of the most control over what their kids access on social media, perhaps they are where we should start. Additionally, I think that we already kind of subconsciously intended our audience to be parents, we just didn't focus enough on it to decide what they want to hear, how we need to structure it, etc. If we choose parents, I think we can stick to our original course by making a few tweaks. Our audience could also be the YouTube/YouTube Kids admins and we're trying to convince them to make changes to their platform (such as upping security and real people monitoring it). If so, I think we would need to reorganize our paper a little bit. As our professor pointed out, we would not be giving YouTube admins a history of YouTube. If we decide to go this route, Hannah, instead of the history of YouTube, perhaps you can talk about the good and bad it HAS done. I think the advantages/disadvantages are more about possibility whereas your section could be about what it has already done. If so, maybe we could reorganize it like this: Introduction Advantages Disadvantages Major Concern The Good/Bad It's Done Where We Stand/How to Fix It Conclusion The thesis is what can usually tie things together, so I think you ladies are all on the right track with the directions you're going, but the thesis needs work. We also would not have the "parents need to be more involved/proactive" leg to stand on--but perhaps there are other legs we can think of? Maybe just improving security to bar hackers and proposing real people monitor videos is enough. Thoughts? Second: Purpose - Why are we writing this paper? This is an argumentative paper (based on the instructions that say we need a strong, argumentative thesis). Rather than inform, we're trying to persuade, so we need to be trying to convince them to do something. I think we're all in agreement that we want to keep kids safer online, but why and how do we plan to do that? When we talked about what can be done (such as more involved parents and real people monitoring videos) we were already circling our purpose, I think we just didn't nail it down exactly (or make it clear in our outline). We want to keep kids safer--that's a broad topic. But "we want to keep kids safer by making the platform itself safer by following these steps" narrows it down a bit more. However, her feedback didn't say that we couldn't ''write an informative paper, so we could potentially stay on course with, again, a few tweaks. Maybe then our audience would be new parents (or parents in general) who are trying to decide if YouTube is a good platform to allow their children access to (but then I don't know we would have a "where we stand/how to fix it" section save for recommending that parents let their kids use it but be proactive about it. Maybe that's enough?). What do you ladies think? 1) Parents who have already been affected by it and are deciding whether or not they should '''continue' letting their kids use it (probably more argumentative but could also be informative)? 2) New parents or parents who are so far unaffected but are deciding whether or not YouTube is a good platform to allow their children (informative but could still be argumentative)? 3) A combination of 1 and 2? 4) Or YouTube admins who we want to change their policies (argumentative)? Or is there another audience and purpose any of you ladies can think of?